Cost/Benefit Analysis Solution IV - Increase Regulation

Benefits –

• The largest in tact strip of boreal forest would be preserved.

• Scarce plant and animal species populations would be able to regenerate.

• A reduction in corruption and increased funding would allow for limited tree harvesting while maintaining increased sustainability.

• Foreign investment would not be compromised.

• Jobs would increase in the forest sector as well as in customs and environmental science.

• Forming coalitions and alliances can bring together common interests and goals which increases productivity and can often lead to greater outcomes. 

Costs –

• Regulation is difficult when much of the forest is scarcely populated.

• Many Russian citizens do not seek to work with or become involved with NGOs.¹

• This results in difficulty of building coalitions for action concerning the role of the environment.

• Increased regulation would require the Russian government’s cooperation with NGOs, which has traditionally been difficult to come by.

• Agreements on how much regulation should be increased and what needs to be done in order to preserve forests as well as the importance of preserving the taiga is constantly disputed.

• The Russian government, the World Bank, the World Wildlife Fund and other NGOs have all had different statistics regarding forest use, damage and derived benefits.

• Ninety-two percent of NGOs reported working with business or industry occasionally or never.²

• Taxes would increase for two reasons:

• More jobs would spur the economy but would initially cost the government money.

• More strict punishment for illegal logging would prove to be more expensive in the justice system.

• In the past, more regulation has proved to be successful only on a small scale.

• Today there exists more regulation in the taiga than a decade ago, yet increased production has still threatened the forests.